Report - Document Exercise

Hey

You made me reread the question a few times this morning (after Florence's light show and concert energy, no small feat, it was magic, see attached  F+TM 2023 1.mp4   F+TM 2023i.mp4   F+TM 2023ii.mp4 ) to understand the ambiguity you're getting at. Hadn't truly noticed earlier.    

So, the end goal of the whole Documents Exercise is to "2. Compare Aristotle’s account with that of Herodotus. How do they agree/disagree? Which account do you prefer? Why?)"

Firstly, there are differences that highlight that, though we often treat these sources like 'primary sources' as "they're the accounts we have". Yet, tthey're both written a considerable time after events, and we've only some passing ideas and references in those texts; and I mean  in Herodotous' and Aristotle's entire corpora, there are only a few hints and direct (in their own words, they didn't use citations as such) acknowledgements of their sources. So we have to make some assessments about the texts. Why were they written? For what purpose, and for whose consumption? etc etc Because they are not holy writs. 

Secondly, ergo we have to also ask, as Greg prompts in 1: "How satisfied are you with Herodotus’ explanation...Does the narrative adequately explain Pisistratus’s success?" (If not, what is/may it be omitting or 'eliding out of their explanation'? Are they "man-splaining" in today's terms, why? Are they writing a "victors' narrative", which you may have noticed I'm (perhaps less than subtly) contrasting with my innate Irish-perspective on our big, powerful, imperial neighbour quite a bit. Aristotle is certainly aware that Greece and Rome have switched roles in that dichotomy. I'm, performatively, being "awkwardly anti-British" as a way of highlighting that I have to account for my own ideological worldview all the time. And, doing that "hurts", as the great Slavoj expresses so irreverently and brilliantly:

...ideology is not simply imposed on ourselves. Ideology is our spontaneous relation to our social world, how we perceive each meaning and so on and so on. We, in a way, enjoy our ideology. To step out of ideology, it hurts. It’s a painful experience. You must force yourself to do it...[because at some level, we're all aware that well aware that the spontaneity that we seem to live life in is illusory; we live lives that are (experientially, and we have the neuroscience demonstrating it), in effect]...a lie that the [ideology-exposing] glasses will make [us] see the truth but that this truth can be painful. It can shatter many of your illusions.

This is a paradox we have to accept. The extreme violence of liberation. You must be forced to be free.

If you simply trust your spontaneous sense of well-being [i.e. yourself and your own discernment]...you will never get free.

So, to effect the end goal. You have to read and summarise Herodotus first. You're invited to "read more widely on this topic", and Greg's furnished some sources.

Not a bad idea to look at those now because they may show you some things about Herodotus' account worth noting in your summary.

Ergo, while the task due Saturday is only the 400w summary of Herodotus' account . You could likely save yourself hours later, when answering the second part over a 1000w (+/- 10% is acceptable word tolerance), by doing some of that forensic reading now.

I hope that helps. Busy the rest of today, and much of tomorrow. I do have a wee midday window, if you wanted to consult online via Zoom for more clarification. I think though, the way to start here is, read what I'm saying above.

Maybe watch Zizek.  Content-warning, Slavoj is highly irreverent about everything (he grew up in Slovenia under communist rule, where conceptualising and problematising political ops could get you killed and frequently did). It's his trademark, and it terrifies the overwhelming majority of middle-class academics (which's the overwhelming majority of academics), because they  really don't like pain. But Zizek and I'm with Neitzche on that. How would you know you're even alive without pain? I really didn't know before. I was one smart cookie, but truly living what Socrates called an "unexamined life". And, examining is the only way to learn anything "that sticks"

Cheers, You really made me think about ontologies and  weltanschauungs here. And, maybe got more explanation than expected. But if you are cluey enough to ask 'the big questions', I'll always answer to the best of my ability. Just remember: nobody can teach you "this road'; the way to learn is walk it. 

Regards, Séan